A few days ago, the Boston political story of the moment was Councillor-elect Michelle Wu’s surprising – some would say shocking – decision to back Bill Linehan for Boston City Council president over either Matt O’Malley or Tito Jackson. There were a number of BMG posts, several Boston Globe stories as well as stories from other media outlets, a lengthy statement from Wu herself on Facebook trying to explain her decision, and numerous comments on Facebook, Twitter, here, and elsewhere about the matter. There’s even a parody Twitter account, @WuFirst, called “Boston Second” (#WuFirst – #BostonSecond) devoted solely to the Linehan business.
But for the last several days, Wu’s own Twitter and Facebook pages have gone dark. Wu hasn’t posted to either account since December 11, the date on which she put out her explanation of why she was backing Linehan. A number of direct replies to her tweets have gone unanswered, and there’s no way of knowing how many tweets directed at her have been met with radio silence.
And today, Globe reporter Akilah Johnson confirms that Wu has clammed up on the subject. At a “thank you” event for supporters tonight in Back Bay, Johnson tried to reopen the subject, without much success.
Incoming City Councilor Michelle Wu gathered her supporters in the downstairs of a Back Bay restaurant Monday night to say thank you for the time and effort that buoyed her to City Hall.
But Wu made no public mention of the controversy swirling around her recent decision to support conservative Bill Linehan’s bid to become City Council president….
When asked during a brief interview if last week’s tumult over Linehan had come up in conversation Monday night, Wu deferred, saying: “Everybody here tonight is here to celebrate.”
Wu seems to be taking a “less said the better” approach to the issue, at least for now. From her perspective, there is probably little to be gained from continuing to generate public dialogue on an issue that, in general, seems to do her few favors. But sooner or later, she will have to talk about it, both with reporters and with her friends on Twitter and Facebook. Once you win your election, you can’t wish away topics that you’d rather not discuss.
that’s exactly what she’s trying to do. Time will tell if it works…
I think this will follow her, a little anyway, because it happened immediately. I’m reminded of Sal Albano and Bill Keating taking on Bill Bulger in their first votes (they both voted for rules reform). Keating was able to build a brand as an independent thinker; Sal always seemed to be trying to make it up to Bulger.
Progressives were loud and clear that they disapprove of this decision. Wu made it clear that she’s still going to vote for Linehan, but she’s willing to talk with any of her constituents about it. Progressives have heard Wu’s position and Wu has heard their position. What’s left for either side to say without overreaching?
1) A better explanation on her reasoning. I don’t know anyone who was initially upset with her decision, read her explanation and felt any better about it.
2) A statement on whether she shares in her husband’s view that when it comes to progressives, she doesn’t need them anyway. An apology would help.
3) Some degree of assurance that she will, in fact, listen to the concerns of progressives and seriously weigh them in her everyday council work. She doesn’t have to agree with everything progressives want, but in cases where she doesn’t, she should always be willing to explain — including publicly — why. Hopefully those answers will be a lot better than what prompted suggestion #1.
1) At this point, really, that would assuage progressives? Maybe she got a great deal for herself/her causes/ or even progressive causes (maybe not), but either way, you just don’t say that kind of thing as part of your public message. At least, if I were an elected (and I’m not), I wouldn’t make a statement with the subtext of “Yeah, I threw progressives under the bus, but it’s okay because I got x y z and I think I’ll be able to help progressive causes even more that way.” I’d just try to move on.
2) You’re asking her to, right off the bat, make her husband look worse than he already does from those comments by repudiating them? Those comments were stupid on oh-so-many levels. And I certainly hope they don’t represent her position. I assume they don’t … and I grant you it’d be great to hear her say so… but I’m not sure the right way to start a relationship with a new city councilor is to ask her to say that her husband made a knucklehead comment. (Then again, I’m not sure the best way for her to start her city council career off was with a firestorm, so…)
3) That has to come in action, not in word, at this point. The only way to know that Wu is with progressives and that she’ll listen to progressives is by voting with / acting with / speaking with progressives. I don’t think the progressive community would expect anything less. Let’s see what her first actions are once she’s in office. Let’s see what she does when there are votes or hearings etc. That’s how we’ll know. I’m not really sure what a statement would do at this point.
So, on the first two points, I just don’t think it would be smart for her or realistic for us to ask her to comment that way. And on the last…I’m not really sure what she could say — I’d rather see actions, not words.
Just say that she values all the people who supported her, worked for her, voted for her during the campaign. She is excited to join the council and hopes to make progress on [short list of important issues]. She looks forward to working with Mayor Walsh, her fellow councillors, and engaged citizens to make a better Boston.
I’m pretty sure she has said that in her comments online. Regardless, I’m just saying, progressives had some major successes on this one: they made her vote for Linehan totally toxic, they got a Globe Op-Ed plus other great press, and they made it clear that she’s gonna need to do some pretty progressive things when she’s actually a councilor — all *after* it was clear that Wu had already pledged to vote for Linehan. The only way to win bigger on this particular turf would be to get her to change her vote, which is unlikely at this late stage. If I were working for progressives on this issue, I’d say, rather than spend more energy on asking her to make statements, spend some on asking her to do x y z progressive thing. Maybe even make it for the LGBT community in particular since that is where Linehan is the most egregious. I’m just saying, great job progressives in making this an issue and holding her feet to the fire — don’t overreach and have it backfire. Similarly, Wu and her allies shouldn’t overreact in calling out progressives for making her transition not so smooth.
Let me clarify. Although I think her comments online haven’t gone very far (and there have been none that I know of since her husband’s unfortunate tweet), I’m not suggesting anyone on the progressive side should be screaming for a better statement. They should move on to issues.
I’m just saying, if I were in Michelle Wu’s position, I’d consider issuing something more to try to address concerns. It’s great that she’s meeting with people to address their concerns, but there will be plenty of volunteers, political junkies, etc., who won’t be in those meetings. It would be good if she threw them a bone. She surely should not lash out at anyone “for making her transition not so smooth.” That’s just asking for more trouble.
I disagree with those who say ‘this ain’t a big deal get over it’, so I am glad progressive really held the line firm on this one. Had we done so with other politicians we might be in better shape. This is not a Tea Party purity test, but a basic premise that you don’t sell out the people who opened the door for you the second you stick your foot in it. I think she knows she screwed up on this one, and I think the way to move forward is to get her to make concessions-and yes get Linehan to make concessions-that the movement wants going forward. That’s smart politics.
Abandoning her or calling her a DINO would be a Tea Party tactic, and would lead to the same outcome (failure).
I suspect some Michelle will try and try and try to explain her reasons for deciding to support Linen to her most disappointed and angry former supporters and she will fail to persuade them that she has made a fully informed decision. At the same time her most disappointed and angry former supporters will try and try and try to convince her to change her mind and they will fail to persuade her to switch her vote.
And so it goes, in round the clock meetings (Michelle is listening) untill January 6. And then I hope she have the time to pay attention to the city’s business with the same determination and good will as she has directed to her current challenges.
I too wish there was a possibility of putting together a winning progressive majority in the City Council……and even when we can create that we will still have to learn how to work hand in hand with the moderates and conservatives.
I said this in response to afertig, but will copy and paste for you.
“After lengthy discussions with other members seeking my vote for the Council Presidency, I was worried that the council would not have been as open to any member as I believe is important. While I disagree with him on many issues, Councilman Linehan’s philosophy on how the council should be run would leave a lot more room for anyone to offer bills and amendments and advocate with maximum effectiveness for their constituents.”
That would have been in every way superior to what she did say, so I take that as an example for why I think you’re wrong… she could have definitely said something that would have made the situation better.
She could have also made the decision in a way that was much better — making it clearer, earlier, that she was trending toward Linehan, so it didn’t come as such a shock (which feels a lot like betrayal to supporters).
thanks much. I know Michelle is listening carefully to a long list of folks troubled by her first explanations and I know she is trying different ways to articulate her reasons for supporting Linehan’s campaign for CC President. Your suggestions is very helpful I think.
#1 – Heck yes, she could be more honest about things like committee positions and promises and the importance of them. She could have done so by saying something to the effect that she’d be ‘better able to serve her supporters’ with whatever committees she knows she’s going to get under Linehan in comparison to someone else.
The fact that she didn’t makes her seem somewhat dishonest about the whole thing. Plus, city politicians do this sort of thing a lot more than I think you realize and it doesn’t damage them.
More importantly, she could have tackled the issue from the other side — why she thought Linehan was better than others or concerns she had with others. She could have addressed it in a diplomatic way, but at least addressed it. Without doing that, no one is going to believe for a second that Linehan will have a more open/process oriented City Hall than the other contenders.
For example, she could have said this: “After lengthy discussions with other members seeking my vote for the Council Presidency, I was worried that the council would not have been as open to any member as I believe is important. While I disagree with him on many issues, Councilman Linehan’s philosophy on how the council should be run would leave a lot more room for anyone to offer bills and amendments and advocate with maximum effectiveness for their constituents.”
I don’t actually believe Linehan would do any of the above, but it would have been a much more convincing statement than the series of vague didn’t-really-say-anything statements which comprised her facebook post.
#2 – She could have addressed her husband’s comments right off the bat and far from making him look worse, it would have made him look much better. Had she got out in front of it, instead of ignored it, she could have made it seem like her husband just got a little hot headed in defense of his wife.
A simple statement along the lines of the following would have gone a long way toward undoing the damage in a positive way: “A tweet was made in a moment of frustration by my husband that he does not mean and that doesn’t reflect the values we share. We value all voices in this city, of every ideology, and look forward to working with people from all walks of life in the days ahead.”
Now it’s probably too late to do that, since it would just bring up the story again, but the fact is it’s going to leave a bad scar — not because of tons of people will remember it (they won’t), but because there was enough thought in his statement (he did the math across a series of wards all across the city — deeming them unnecessary) that it leaves a legitimate concern about how widespread those notions may be in the Wu camp.
People will forget he said it, but core activists who were scratching their heads over the whole incident will now be left to wonder if that feeling is shared. The fact that nothing was said about the incident can only act to reinforce those feelings.
3.
Why? Action is obviously the most important thing, but words matter, too. Words could have helped sooth things over, but the lack of them has left people to wonder and to let whatever impressions they had during the incident cement in their minds — making it much harder for her to build trust in the end.
Furthermore, it didn’t have to be just words. She could have again got out in front of the issue and publicly made it known that she wanted to have a meeting with some of the progressive leaders in the city that she pissed off to discuss the issue and ensure them she valued their voices.
Examples of who she could have invited: some of the core members of the ward committees that were targeted in the infamous tweet, some of the leaders of groups who publicly commented on her facebook post, like the Boston biking guy, a ranking YDM’er who posted and some Boston members of Progressive Mass. Etc.
Doing so would have quickly calmed the waters through words (the public offer) and action (the invitations and the meeting) and set things up for trust to be quickly rebuilt (as people talked to their organizations in the days/weeks following).
—
All that said, I think there’s a much bigger concern here than if she’s with progressives. It’s about competency.
All of these decisions that have been made in her camp seem very amateurish to me — her decision to back Linehan in the first place, clearly failing to anticipate the backlash it would spawn, as well as all of the reactions.
At every step of the way, she could have made things better… but made things worse.
I was a big supporter of hers from outside of Boston and was very excited about her campaign, but now the very limited attention paid to the City Council At-Large race seems glaring.
Is she ready for this responsibility? I would have thought for sure a month ago, now I’m not so sure.
.
Supposed to be an up vote.
Also, nothing is done til the actual vote.